Skill load

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: unknown names and skills outside the allowed set produce a message rather than a hard failure, and the return is the entire SKILL.md (potentially large). It does not discuss size or truncation limits, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the prerequisite and the failure mode. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described. For a one-parameter read tool, the definition covers the action, payload scope, prerequisite, and error behavior — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the ' — ' delimiter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint not encoded in the schema — that the name must fall within the caller's allowed set — which meaningfully informs how to choose the value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Load a skill's full instructions (its whole SKILL.md) by name"), which tells the agent both the action and the scope of the payload. It also names the sibling tool skill_search as the source of the name, so an agent can distinguish it from skill_search and memory_search without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent the prerequisite step (find the name with skill_search) and notes what happens for an unknown or disallowed name. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to load versus when a search result alone suffices, but the implied usage is clear given the sibling set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.